EU policy goals and U.S. values

To follow up on the outcome of the meetings of the EU last week, I turned to the Presidency Conclusions, published by the Council of the European Union on march 14. In the Climate Change and Energy section, I found a summary of the goals and assessments made during the summit. In a nutshell, the EU hopes to agree on a package of proposals "before the end of 2008 [to] allow for their adoption within the current legislative term, at the latest early in 2009." As far as creating a new kyoto... "The objective is to secure an ambitious, global and comprehensive post-2012 agreement on climate change at Copenhagen in 2009 consistent with the EU's 2°C objective."

I was particularly interested in how the EU plans to ease its member countries into the transition to a low carbon economy, as fear of this transition has seemed to be a major impediment to action on reducing carbon emissions in the United States. According to the report, the EU has identified the main challenges of the transition to be maintaining: "sustainable development, competitiveness, security of supply, food security, sound and sustainable public finance and economic and social cohesion."

To address these challenges, and the effects they will have on the economy, politics and citizens, the EU compiled a list of policy goals:

• developing coherent R&D and innovation policies at European and national levels;
• unlocking the business potential of eco-industries and developing a sustainable
industrial policy and sustainable and globally competitive lead markets, while taking into account the impact of Energy and Climate Change measures on competitiveness;
• promoting a sustainable transport system which allows Member States, in the
framework of EU policies, to take necessary measures to combat climate change
effectively;
• considering a review of the Energy Taxation Directive to bring it more closely into line with the EU's energy and climate change objectives;
• improving energy and resource efficiency in all sectors;
• informing the consumer about the efficient use of energy in order to tackle social
impacts and opportunities of Energy and Climate Change.

Of these goals, those which speak most powerfully to me are: "unlocking the business potential of eco-industries" and "informing the consumer about energy use and opportunities of Energy and Climate Change". I think that once these two key components are identified on a national scale, then the rest will follow.

To clarify, however, I think that (at least in the U.S.) the consumer needs to be informed not only about efficient energy use, but first and foremost, the consumer must be able to identify with some deeper impetus for making life-style changes to stop global warming. Even after a consumer is acquainted with the potential opportunities for economic development (inherent in transferring to a low carbon economy), they may still, out of inertia, not change their habits. In order to change their habits, they must first identify with some value associated with a low carbon economy (think Shellenberger and Nordhaus). Perhaps there has already been a shift in values in the European Union, whereby consumers are ready to take risks (and maybe even make sacrifices) for reducing total carbon emissions. In the United States, however, this formidable barrier must still be crossed before we can begin to realistically consider policy options like those listed above.

how the EU can make emission caps effective

The previous post made mention of the summit taking place this week in the European Union to create a comprehensive cap-and-trade package for member countries. According to a news story yesterday in Reuters, the EU sees more value (in terms of preventing anthropogenic climate change) in a cap-and-trade system than in offsetting carbon emissions:

"If developing countries continue to be only offset suppliers we simply will not reach (desired) emissions levels," the Commission's Head of Emissions Trading, Yvon Slingenberg, told a carbon market conference in Copenhagen."We need a re-think. (Emissions cuts) would become more the contributions of developing nations," she told reporters. "(We want) a gradual shift from offsetting to cap and trade."

Aside from serious implications for the growing carbon market, the shift from carbon offsets to cap and trade still calls for control on leakage, as outlined in the previous post on this blog. The primary goal of the EU is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow and ultimately stop climate change (global warming). However, it is no less important to minimize the potential problems of leakage and reduced competitiveness of EU industries. To these ends, the summit this week will seek ways to globalize the impacts of their program.

According to The Canadian Press, one of the ways in which this will be accomplished is for EU countries to impose trade and other sanctions on both industrializing and industrialized countries who refuse to sign on to a new international accord to cut greenhouse gas emissions (the new Kyoto). Wake up, U.S.A., they mean us. The United States has traditionally been a world leader in matters of stewardship for human rights and security, but in the case of human-induced climate change (perhaps the #1 threat to global security), we have done nothing but drag our feet, arguing about the validity of the science to buy time for inaction. I applaud the European Union, and I hope they are not afraid to stand up to us in order to finally get us to change our ways. Through the use of sanctions, the EU will not only solve the problems of leakage and competitiveness, but it may also succeed in spurring the U.S., China, and other emissions giants into reducing their output of greenhouse gases.

leakage

The idea of leakage has arisen in a few of my blog postings, so I thought it would be a good idea to examine the meaning of this term. On February 25, I listed a few measures which must be taken in order to validate carbon offsets. One of these is that the seller of the offset must provide "evidence for no increase in emissions elsewhere as a result of project". In a nutshell, this explains the issue of leakage.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report, from 2001, gives a clear description of leakage in the mitigation section of the report:

"Leakage refers to the situation in which a carbon sequestration activity (e.g., tree planting) on one piece of land inadvertently, directly or indirectly, triggers an activity which, in whole or part, counteracts the carbon effects of the initial activity. It can be shown that most of these types of problems arise from differential treatment of carbon in different regions and circumstances, and the problem is not unique to carbon sequestration activities but pervades carbon mitigation activities in the energy sector as well."

A simple example of leakage, provided by the report, is when a piece of land or wetland set aside for preservation results in a different piece of land being cleared instead. A more complex instance of leakage can arise when carbon forests are paid for timber and carbon credits, but industrial forests are only paid for wood production, and not for carbon credits. In this scenario, timber companies may invest less in new forests, in anticipation of future timber production from carbon forests. Some of the carbon credits gained from carbon forests would therefore be nullified by the reduction in new forest planting by the timber industry. According to the IPCC's 2001 report:

"Leakage from industrial forests, resulting from forests established for carbon purposes, has been estimated by Sohngen and Sedjo (1999) to be about 40%, globally, assuming that all carbon forests are made available to the timber market."

The report suggests that national caps on total emissions would help alleviate the problem of leakage within national boundaries. In order to resolve the problem of leakage between nations, however, global caps would have to be implemented. This week, members of the European Union are meeting to discuss just such a system. They are working on the implementation of a cap-and-trade package which would require industrial emissions to be cut by 20% by the year 2020. Some have expressed concerns that capping industrial emissions in European countries will simply drive industries to countries outside of the EU. The resulting leakage would not only make industrial emissions caps ineffective in terms of reducing global atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, but it would also penalize those industries adhering to emissions caps within the EU. According to an article published yesterday in The Canadian Press:

"To prevent such "carbon leakage," the EU will insist on an international emissions plan to make the fight against climate change truly global and to create a level playing field for industries worldwide. The EU has said its emission system can easily be linked to a global network of pollution auctioning rights."

More about how the EU will impose and enforce an international emissions plan in the next post...

the role of the climate scientist

On Thursday, I listened to Jim White give the 'keynote address' to an international group of scientists in Boulder for the annual Arctic Workshop. The workshop was held at INSTAAR this year, and, given the extreme sensitivity of polar regions to climate perturbations, many of the talks and posters featured work related to global warming. Jim's talk was titled 'IPY: not just a year, it's a responsibility'. Most readers are probably scratching their heads right now, thinking... IPY? This year is the International Polar Year, a year of conferences and public outreach aimed at raising awareness of the importance and vulnerability of polar regions in the face of impending climate change.

Jim's talk was aimed at long-time friends and colleagues in the tightly-knit arctic research community, and, as such, it was not simply a recap of the science, challenges, and potential solutions to the global warming threat. It was more along the lines of a call-to-arms to those people who have the greatest potential to instigate public and political action to stop global warming. Scientists, particularly climate scientists, have a unique role to play right now. Those who understand our climate have the responsibility to step up and explain the science, clarify the role of uncertainty, and advocate for large-scale changes to be made so that we won't have to face the catastrophes and surprises that will inevitably come to pass when atmospheric CO2 reaches 500ppm... 600ppm... 800ppm... and it won't take much to reach those levels...

carbon karma on sale now... terminal B... next to Chili's

I flew out of Denver International Airport this weekend, and remembered having heard that DIA was planning on setting up vending stations for carbon offsets in its terminals. Intrigued by the idea of a Carbon Footprint Slimming Station alongside the Dunkin' Donuts, the Taco Bell, and the Snack and News Stand, I did a little research to find out if this is actually DIA's intent. In a recent article in the Rocky Mountain News, I found that, yes indeed, by August of this year, there will be vending machines of this nature in the airport. The plan is to offer folks the option to buy offsets (likely in the form of reforestation in Brazil and solar panels in India) equal to the emissions incurred during their air travels.

Upon initial consideration, it seems like a decent idea- for those of us who feel guilty flying, it's an option to redeem ourselves and relieve any bad carbon karma. But in reality, is this a sound and ethical solution to the problem of CO2 in the atmosphere? Here we are, creating new technologies and new marketing schemes (yes, marketing schemes... DIA will take up to a 14% cut of all sales of carbon offsets in its terminals) to address a problem that cannot be solved by offsets in the long run. Even if we could perfect our ability to quantify the balance between carbon drawn down or precluded from emission by reforestation and solar, versus the carbon emitted by one person's decision to fly in an airplane, we still would only be achieving carbon neutrality. At some point, we are going to have to change our habits and begin cutting back on energy-expensive activities, or find clean alternative means to the ends we seek.

On another note, I am disturbed by the public reaction to this issue; the comments posted on the Rocky Mountain News website in response to this article express nothing but distrust of the players in the carbon market and scorn for the so-called "suckers" who would purchase offsets equivalent to their travel emissions. It is scary to think that the general public may have absolutely no intention of pursuing this option, but I can certainly understand why consumers would be critical or suspicious of the idea. For one thing, people have trouble buying into the idea that buying solar panels for the other side of the world could possibly have any positive benefits for the American traveler. Wouldn't it be a far more marketable and effective (and, frankly, believable) idea to use money earned by offset sales to install solar panels on the roof of the airport itself? Or to invest in wind farms at least in the same state? I can also see why people would be cynical of a "big-corporate-airport-owner's" sales ploy to save the world... especially when DIA is taking a cut of would-be offset money for their own 'administrative' uses.

more about trees...

Thanks to Chuck, for posting a question about the February 25 entry. His question was: "Do tree-based carbon offsets work off of predicted future growth, or actual real time growth?"

To investigate this question, I turned, of course, to the world wide web. After a good surfing session, the only thing I can come up with is that methods for calculating offsets can vary from company to company. Terrapass, a popular seller of other types of carbon offsets, suggests that the most common way that companies market carbon offsets from reforestation is by advertising sequestration rates of 40 year old trees. There is an obvious problem with this ploy, given the fact that saplings and young trees don't sequester nearly as much carbon as a 40 year old tree. This is just one of the reasons cited by Terrapass for not using this method of carbon sequestration. Other reasons they list are: sales of offsets for reforestation make the hefty assumption that the forest will be permanent, and that the trees won't die or burn, also it is difficult to measure the amount of carbon offset by tree planting, thirdly leakage can occur (see 2/25 post), fourth there is some evidence that forests decrease the earth's albedo (reflectivity) enhancing global warming, fifth monoculture has its own host of issues, and the list goes on. Of course, Terrapass's website may be biased since they don't actually offer this sort of offset, but the opinions and ideas expressed are echoed all over the scientific community.

Whereas selling carbon offsets for tree planting is relatively laissez-faire in the market at large, there are more stringent rules if you wish to register your offsets in some official context. One example is the Wisconsin Emission Reduction Registry, a service of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The DNR website offers an explanation of and access to a spreadsheet that anyone can use to calculate the offsets produced by planting a given number of a variety of different types of trees. They also outline a set of rules that must be adhered to if one wants to register voluntary offsets in the state of Wisconsin. These comprehensive guidelines require the budding offsetter to determine the baseline (I'm assuming this means starting conditions of carbon flux on the land to be reforested), quantify their offsets using the aforementioned spreadsheet, verify their offsets, and keep close records of the activity.

By including calculations for tree classification, tree age, growth rate and survival rate, users of the DNR's spreadsheet can determine total carbon sequestered over time as well as individual year carbon sequestration amounts. The Wisconsin Emission Reduction Registry does not allow for aggregation of carbon sequestered over a number of years, however, if emissions can be accurately calculated, then the carbon sequestered by a given tree in a given year can be considered an offset for that year. For instance, the carbon sequestered in 2008 by 4-year-old tree counts for equivalent offsets in the year 2008, but you can't also consider the tree's total life-time carbon sequestration. At least, that's how I understand it.

At any rate, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a universally mandated procedure for calculating the carbon offsets for planting trees, unless you wish to register your offset with a group like the Wisconsin Emission Reduction Registry. Until there are stricter regulations, I don't view this method as either very reliable or effective. It is wonderful to plant trees, and there are a host of positive environmental contributions associated with restoring native forests to deforested lands. I am suspicious of this activity, however, in terms of its efficacy in offsetting the CO2 spewing out of my tailpipe.

Cow Power

There are various new carbon offset projects being undertaken that focus on harnessing agriculturally produced methane through anaerobic digestion. Three of the most promising methods are covered lagoons, plug-flow, and complete-mix digester systems, according to the National Carbon Offset Coalition. Bacteria will produce methane from manure whether or not it occurs in an open field or in an anaerobic digester, but when it is in a digester, it can accomplish two important goals. First, it provides a source of renewable energy, which can be used to run turbines or generators for energy production, or it can be burned in boilers to produce heat. The second, and perhaps even more important goal, is that it keeps methane, an extremely powerful greenhouse gas, from entering the atmosphere.

Methane is produced from manure via a chain of reactions driven by bacteria, as is illustrated below by a simple flow chart from wikipedia. First, bacteria break down the large organic molecules in manure into sugars, fatty acids and amino acids through a process called hydrolysis. Methanogens (or, methane-producing bacteria) can eat these components, or they can be further broken down by acidogenic bacteria in the process of fermentation. The products of fermentation (carbonic acids and alcohols, hydrogen, carbon dioxide and ammonia) can then be broken down into hydrogen, carbon dioxide and acetic acid by acetogens. Finally, methanogens create methane, carbon dioxide and water out of the final remaining components.


(CLICK on the flow chart to make it BIGGER)

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources gives a good overview of the three main ways harnessing methane through anaerobic digestion. The first is the covered lagoon system, where waste manure from farm animals (cows, pigs, etc.) is stored in an above-ground lagoon, which is covered by impermeable tarps and sealed at the edges. A pipe runs under the cover to collect the biogas that is created through anaerobic digestion, and send it to generators or boilers.

The second method is the plug-flow digester system. Manure and water (to maintain the proper consistency) are added to a mixing tank, or plug, which is stored below-ground. The tank is sometimes heated (with energy produced by the tank itself!) in order to speed up production of biogas, which is then driven out, either via a pump or the pressure built up by gas production, into a pipeline to be sent to a generator or boiler.

The third way of harnessing methane from manure is called the complete-mix digester system. In the complete-mix system, manure is collected in an above-ground tank (or below-ground in colder regions). The manure is heated in this tank, to begin the anaerobic process, before being pumped into a reactor tank, where it is mechanically mixed to keep the solids separated from the liquids. As biogas accumulates, it is pumped away for use, and the left-over solids can be used as fertilizer.

The Iowa DNR estimates that manure-derived methane from Iowa, if harnessed, has the potential to fulfill all of the power needs for 325, 000 homes. For this to happen, however, the price of installing and managing anaerobic methane digesters will need to decrease. According to the DNR, installation of a new system costs between about $300,000 and $500,000, which is a substantial cost to farm-owners. Perhaps in the future, as prices fall and demand increases, this renewable energy source will become a reality for more farmers.

FTC and carbon offsets

Currently the carbon offset market functions on an entirely voluntary basis. Even so, it is growing at an incredible rate. According to the August, 2007 State of the Voluntary Carbon Market report by New Carbon Finance, a carbon market analyst and advisory firm, the number of organizations selling carbon credits into the marked has increased by 200% since 2002. In 2006, some 23.7 million tons of CO2 equivalent were traded in the voluntary markets. There are various ways to quantify carbon offsets, and there is also uncertainty about the efficacy of different methods. For this reason, and amid growing concerns that consumers are actually getting what they pay for and that offset projects aren't double-selling credits, the Federal Trade Commission has been looking into ways to regulate the market. The FTC held a conference in early January to discuss these issues, but so far, no new 'green guides' have come out.

In an effort to press the issue, the Attorney General's Offices from 10 states issued a request for the FTC to take the following steps in hopes of preventing fraud in the carbon market: 1) research on consumer perceptions of what carbon offsets are, 2) commission research into the efficacy of disclosure, or labeling (the AG's suggest putting a "carbon facts" box on marketing materials), 3) consumer education encouraging reduction of emissions, and guidelines for purchasing offsets, 4) require substantiation of projects, including evidence for permanence of projects, no double-selling of offsets, no selling offsets for projects that are undertaken for compliance with existing laws, evidence for no increase in emissions elsewhere as a result of project, and scientific evidence for the quantity of carbon offset (scientific evidence, as defined in the FTC's green guides). A statement and a copy of the letter can be found at the Vermont Attorney General's Office website.

Carbon offsetting is growing into a multi-million dollar market, and as such, it is in desperate need of regulation. As mentioned above, quantifying and verifying offsets is sticky business. For example, planting trees is a common carbon offset mechanism. Reforesting areas that were previously subjected to deforestation is one way to draw down atmospheric CO2 through photosynthesis by trees. The problem is that if that tree burns or dies and decomposes, the CO2 it once took out of the atmosphere is put back into the air. Another potentially negative implication of this practice is for biodiversity. Some tree plantations are being planned for areas that have never naturally had forests. Also, many plantations are only reforested with one type of tree for potential future use in logging or biodiesel production, and these monoculture tree farms can have serious impacts on biodiveristy.

Let's hope the FTC gets down to business and provides the carbon market with some rules and regulations as well as providing consumers with guidelines to navigate this complex arena.

Green Freedom

Here's a new idea (at least to me): why don't we sequester CO2 emissions right back into the form of gasoline and pump it into our cars and airplanes? This is the line of research being pursued right now at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Scientists there are pursuing the relatively simple concept that CO2 can be chemically absorbed from the air, using liquid potassium carbonate, for later conversion to synthetic gasoline. The chemical reaction involved is: (CO2 + CO3 +H2O -> 2HCO3), where CO3 comes from potassium carbonate (K2CO3).

While this technology has been explored in the past, the scientists at LANL claim that they have finally figured out a way to make CO2-scrubbing energy efficient enough to be carbon neutral and to produce competitive prices at the pump. The only glitch? The processing plants that would capture/convert CO2 to synthetic gasoline require a significant energy input. In order to maintain the carbon neutrality that makes this process so appealing, LANL scientists suggest nuclear energy. They tout nuclear as being the most cost effective at this point, although in the future, perhaps renewables (such as wind and solar) will be able to take up the slack. LANL has figured that with an initial investment of $5 billion in a nuclear plant, they can generate prices of between $3.40 and $4.60 at the pump.

This is certainly an interesting avenue for our country to be pursuing; leave it to Americans to find an economical and 'carbon neutral' way to keep plugging along at the status quo emissions-wise. I am somewhat skeptical, however, of the feasibility of this project. It seems unlikely that sucking air into towers attached to geographically dispersed production plants could actually have any effect on the overall concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere. Also, what about the other toxins spewed from the tailpipes of our cars and trucks? Perhaps this will be a viable solution for some technologies (jetliners, for example), but I think we're barking up the wrong tree as far as cars are concerned. Internal combustion engines are extremely inefficient machines, and I think that the most viable solution to this problem is to switch to fuel cell or battery-powered cars that we can plug into a grid powered with an integrated system of renewable energy sources. For airplanes this is not yet a reality; perhaps LANL's innovative ideas will effectively neutralize the carbon input/output of jetliners by powering them instead with synthetic gasoline.

Jeffery Martin, the principal investigator on the project will be presenting LANL's ideas tomorrow (February 20, 2008) at the Alternative Energy NOW conference in Florida. For more information, check out the official public release on Green Freedom from LANL. Also, running the search "Green Freedom" on the LANL site will yield access to some good pdf's detailing the science behind this technology.

the ecopsychologist

Another interesting character in the complicated realm of carbon emissions (and, more importantly, what to do with them) is that of the ecopsychologist. In a nutshell, the new and growing branch of ecopsychology deals with existential issues arising out of the human race's separation from nature. As humans' cultural evolution has outpaced that of the natural world, we tend to find ourselves (especially in America) substantially separated from the earth's complex network of ecosystem interactions. Humans suffer from this separation not only because of our loss of a connection with nature, but also because of the moral dilemmas which stem from the cause and effect relationship between our consumption and the destruction of natural resources and biodiversity.

So what sort of cure might be prescribed to a distraught earth inhabitant, reclining in despair on an ecopsychologist's couch? You guessed it-- the Rx of the 21st century is to start chipping away at the old carbon footprint. Of course, this is just one of the ways in which a person ailing from the ethical woes of an over-consumer or global-warming-catalyst can calm their karmic disquietudes, but it is one that is rising in popularity. Take the McLendon family, for example; two days ago this family was covered by the NY Times for their unique response to family therapy sessions. Instead of prozac or continued therapy, this family was advised to retrofit their house to be more green, and to take their kids outside more for play time and community service. The go-to source for those interested in this brave new foray into the ever more complicated American psyche is Ecopsychology.org. Here you can find literature, events, and lists of practitioners- there may be an eco-doc in your hometown, especially for those in (here's a shocker) California.